Hi Thomas, > >> Hi, >> the patch for the proposed modification has been attached to the >> MATH-753 ticket. Thanks for your comments! >> > > What I have seen in the patch, you remove duplicated code by using the > already existing lanczos function, and create an additional function for > the constant. > In fact, I've realized that I have accidentally committed the lanczos() function in r1334315, which has nothing to do with this matter (that revision was about MATH-784). In fact, double lanczos(double) is indeed new. I will try to revert the change in Gamma in r1334315, and commit it in a new revision, once we all agree that double lanczos(double) can be exposed.
So the question is: do you like this function lanczos (and its Javadoc) or not. Do you agree with this method being public? > > I guess just creating a public final static constant for the LANCZOS_G > value would be better? > Yes, you're right, it is better... Thanks > Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
